Re: Egg Card Dispute, DCA letter and no CCA?

So what are you doing on here then skywalker? Sorry your one of those people who hasn't got a life and spends all day on forums putting your 2 pennies worth in business that doesn't concern you. t******

I lost my job after 24yrs in the City of London and I also have PPI protection for all of my borrowings, but do you think it's fair that EGG put my interest rate up from 19.9% to 26.9% overnight the minute I put in a claim and they should be able to get away with it.

People only have themselves to blame for the mess they are in I agree, but the banks are also to blame as well. You see I worked in the banking industry all my life and over the last few years I have witnessed loans, cards etc etc being given out to all that applied and some of these people had been declared bankrupt and had credit ratings that were down the sh*tter. This was down to the banks being greedy which in turn bankrupted them and us as the taypayer have paid the price by losing our jobs and our taxes being used to bail them out.

This in turn lead to company CEO's etc being paid extreme sums of cash for failure. Does that seem fair to you.

I suppose all these MP expenses claims for mortgages that have been paid is OK with you as well.

I have worked all my life and never asked anybody for any help so in total I've been paying tax and NI for 24yrs and my last year of working I was paying £3k per month to the government, but the minute I need help I'm entitled to nothing and you wonder why the lay person wants some pay back on these merchant bankers who still think they can do as they like after being bailed out.

Someone has to fight back so unless you have anything constructive to say go and get back under your rock. Sorry you own a house.

Re: Egg Card Dispute, DCA letter and no CCA?

The only part of what you say that I am having trouble with is the "Credit limit" since the acts and regs do not state that the term need to be so described. The act and regs are even inconsistent on this. I am forced to wonder if a case would be so proven on the merit of so small a technicality

I will read the case histories, one , I know, the other is new to me.

My real concern is that we convey the message that this is a possibility, and not let others see it as a certainty.

I may change my view once I have dug deeper into the cases since any appeal has the potential to proveide precedent, as I'm sure you know. The more higher court case history exists, the greater the probability of success, hence the Chester court activity, of course.

'Approved' and 'individual' when used under the heading Limit has been shown to be not acceptable a prescribed term, they are not synonymous with the term 'credit'. Both cases were subsequently upheld on appeal.

The interest rate for cash advances (this being a multiple agreement) not being shown is fatal.

I appreciate the further flaws are not in themselves fatal, but are included just to add weight to the case and may pursuade a wavering judge.

As I've said, these arguments were successful very recently when used by the claimant against Egg.

Re: Egg Card Dispute, DCA letter and no CCA?

In general, I would have to say that creditors who have lost in such instances, apart from omission of the interest rate, prescribed term, are either, poorly researched, poorly served by council, or have taken a concious decision not to contest, unless you are suggesting that the above list be entirely missing from all agreements.

If a prescribed term is missing then the other minor infractions are of no relevance since the prior omission renders the agreement unenforcible ast law.

regarding the credit limit, the intent of the legislation is to determine and notify a sum of money, or the source of this information and the concept that such a sum constitutes a constraint. The prescibed term, as such, is the sum of money, not the terminology. It is worth noting that within these regulation and the act they serve the term is variously described and can be shown to be the same in intent.

The omission of "charges on default", since not a prescribed term would , of itself, render the agreement enforcible on the order, not otherwise.

The no-interspersing section of the regulations allows for references to terms and conditions, if the interspersed term can be shown to be contained within the T&Cs then the inclusion, whilst a technical infringement without the appropriate reference, is not of itself an infringement of the regulations. The non interspersing regulations are not prescribed and would only render the agrrement improperly executed.

OK, you are probably already screaming venom at your monitor so lets consider what I'm trying to say, and why.

1 8 people have contributed to this thread, whereas 1113 have viewed. Most people look, take the information and leave, unnanounced. We have a duty to offer a balanced view so the right perspective is provided to those who seek no clarification.

2 People have succeeded (excellent, and good luck to them), I suspect people have failed too. As I noted above, there are many reasons for suuccess and failure, without knowing the details, it is difficult to know the true interpretation of the information provided. It may be that a person has spent £300 pounds in the last 5 years but re-paid £2000, due to interst. I f the balance of the account is £500 then is it worth expending on court time and preparation. Whereas the individual who has £20K of mostly expenditure on a short termed account is well worth pursuit. Each account is taken on its respective merit.

3 As long as an agreement bears the prescribed terms and the signature of the debtor, it is enforcible on an order. It could be written on the back of a cigarette packet.

4 The court MAY give an order and MAY vary the terms, this is the discretion of the court. If all the mentioned shortfalls occur on a single document, prescribed terms notwithstanding, the court may determine that the agreement is so fundamentally and generally flawed as to be unenforcible.

5 Most cases of this type are heard in the lesser courts, so are not precient. This is a two edged sword.

Hope this helps, it is only my opinion and I am happy to enter constructive discourse in relation to the content.

As for you, Basa, I hope we can still be friends.

I would like for people to leave this site with a balanced view of the situation. We would be wrong if we urged people to rush to litigation where a case is weak, similarly we would fail our duty if we did not support a strong case.

Each on its own merit.

There is no substitute for knowing your rights, being able to interpret the information given and recognising when support is necessary.

Cookie Use

MoneySupermarket uses cookies, small text files which are downloaded to your computer's hard drive when you visit most websites.

Cookies are harmless files which can help improve the experience. Cookies allow websites to respond to you as an individual. The website can tailor its operations to your needs, likes and dislikes by gathering and remembering information about your preferences.

By accepting cookies, MoneySupermarket is able to provide you with a better service and customise your experience with us.